Forum:Disambiguatin'
Basically I think this wiki is kind of messy the way things are organised. Particularly in terms of article titles. It also prioritises the original Mass Effect too heavily. Obviously the wiki's layout and organisation was all done before ME2 was even announced, but since then little has been done to reorganise, and with ME3 on the horizon, I think the issue needs to be addressed. Of course that depends on you considering it an issue, but I do. I think a perfect example of the problem is our Armor pages. The Armor article is basically an article for Mass Effect 1 Armor, with the opening paragraph and the first two subheadings all relating soley to the original game. Mass Effect 2's information has been relegated to a subheading, with all it's information being divided into further subheadings. In the Mass Effect 2 section we even have to link off to a second Customization page, because it would make the Armor article too long. However, if there were two seperate articles we could fold Customization into the ME2 Armor page. Basically what I'm saying is that instead of having Armor, Armor Upgrades, Armor Customization, Armorwe have Armor, for lore and links to Armor (Mass Effect) and Armor (Mass Effect 2). Armor Upgrades would be folded into the ME1 Armor article (with some smarter formatting, it could be slimmed down considerably), to match the ME2 Armor section, which has upgrades. Obviously the ME1 armor articles for each species will need to stay, since there are so damn many of them. This philosophy would then be applied to other articles. So instead of having Talents, Powers and Powers (Mass Effect 3), it would be Talents, Powers, for disambiguation, Powers (Mass Effect 2) and Powers (Mass Effect 3). Assault Rifles would become Assault Rifles, for disambiguation, Assault Rifles (Talent), Assault Rifles (Mass Effect) and Assault Rifles (Mass Effect 3). You may notice that in some cases this will lead to more pages. However I think doing this will make navigation easier, and each of the individual articles much cleaner and easier to navigate. This would mean we would rely more heavily on disambiguation pages, rather than having s all over the place. I'm not really proposing anything yet, just trying to kick off a discussion on how to clean the place up a bit. JakePT 09:26, June 11, 2011 (UTC) Comments I would definitely be in favour of cleaning it up. While this wiki serves for all three games, I don't see any reason to have data from two different games on the same page. As long as no information is lost in the transition, I see this as providing a cleaner method of accessing the data. --Snicker 10:10, June 11, 2011 (UTC) :Everything I'm reading now I have mixed opinions about. There are smoe things I like, and other things I don't and I really want this talked out, all concerns addressed, and opinions heard before anything is done. Lancer1289 15:01, June 11, 2011 (UTC) ::Yeah... this proposed overhaul is probably a bit overdue. We'll definitely need it with three (major) games as opposed to two, as it'll just get too confusing otherwise. It should streamline things and make for easier access for the casual editor. We'll want to fully flesh it out to make sure everything gets covered, and to also hash out what to do with things that are the same between the games, but which have different names, such as the Talents of ME and the Powers of ME2. What I'd like to see is a link to the Talents page as well on the Powers disambig page, just in case, but that's the sort of thing we'll need to discuss. It's definitely a good idea, and something we need to do, and do pretty soon. SpartHawg948 19:52, June 11, 2011 (UTC) ::Yeah, as I said this is just to get the ball rolling on a discussion. It's why I didn't bother with the project template. Specific suggestions were just examples not proposals. ::Also, Lancer, I really don't appreciate the tone of your reply. What did I say that implied I wouldn't do those things? In future I'd prefer you cease talking down to me. ::All I do is post a proposal to start discussions and you jump in and all you have to offer is demanding (yes, demanding, the bold AND italics, not to mention the "I want") that I do exactly what I'm doing. That is, sourcing opinions and concerns. JakePT 09:27, June 15, 2011 (UTC) :::Attitude again, really? I'm just saying that something like this needs to have everything sorted out first before anything is done, and I said that. The fact you, yet again, blast me for something, doesn't help. Something like this really needs to be hammered out to the extreme before anything should be done, otherwise we could end up in a situation where something isn't done right. That's really all I wanted to say, yet I get blasted over it. Lancer1289 14:57, June 15, 2011 (UTC) ::::I'm up for it... disambiguation pages make everything simpler, that way a user doesn't have to remember exactly what he/she's looking for; just type the word on the search bar and you're lead to the disambig. page. Also Lancer, to paraphrase Jacob in ME2, there's still enough red tape to sink a cruiser. Everyone here except you are vociferously in favour of the disambig. pages. If a vote took place now, I could say that a large majority would agree to it. Even Spart does. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 15:11, June 15, 2011 (UTC) :::::So what in my comment said I was against it? I just want this discussion to be through, and there are still a few things I have concerns about, but those could be eliminated in time because of the infancy of the proposal. What gave the impression that I'm completely against it? Seriously though, I'm getting the distinct feeling that I shouldn't comment here anymore because no one can read my comments for what they are. Lancer1289 15:41, June 15, 2011 (UTC) ::::::I should rephrase: You may support it, but you're so bent on ensuring absolute adherence to protocol that it seems you're walking a thin line between supporting and opposing it. This will get discussed for a while, but most of the conversation will be one-sided. Just loosen up a bit, make a disclaimer-less decision and stick with it... the rest falls in line soon after. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 16:27, June 15, 2011 (UTC) Can we please stick to the topic? It's obvious that both Lancer and Jake can't always agree on the same thing but this personal spat between you two recently clearly needs to be settled somewhere if we want to maintain a productive discussion here. Also, conversations on the internet tends to get muddled up and misunderstood, hence wikia's recommendation of assuming good faith. — Teugene (Talk) 17:05, June 15, 2011 (UTC) :Seriously, you guys? SERIOUSLY? Lancer1289, JakePT was entirely justified in his response. If I'd made the proposal, and you'd commented as you did, full of implications that JakePT would act rashly or with undue haste ("and I really want this talked out, all concerns addressed, and opinions heard before anything is done." - the clear implication here being that JakePT couldn't be depended upon to talk things out and hear opinions before taking action, which is ludicrous), I'd have responded about the same way he did. The "attitude" here was (in my honest opinion) completely justified given the comment it was in response to. :H-Man Havoc and Teugene are both correct here. H-Man Havoc states that Lancer1289 should "make a disclaimer-less decision and stick with it". And I couldn't agree more. Remove the bit I quoted from Lancer1289's comment, and it becomes completely innocuous. And Teugene is absolutely correct in stating that "this personal spat between you two recently clearly needs to be settled somewhere if we want to maintain a productive discussion here". Get back on topic. I don't want to hear more about this nonsense in this forum. SpartHawg948 23:38, June 15, 2011 (UTC) To be completely honest, I was thinking about something like this but I was worried my proposal would be dismissed. Creating a disambiguation page is an amazing idea in my opinion because it would make things far more organized and easier to access for those who casually surf the site.--Direct Control 23:53, June 15, 2011 (UTC) I certainly like the idea of disambiguation. I just want to ask, to what extend we are going to disambiguate pages? Will characters and enemies pages be part of it? — Teugene (Talk) 07:23, June 16, 2011 (UTC) :It depends on the level of variety for each enemy type. Husks have a few types now, Cerberus enemies will have as well, so do troopers, etc... So in the short, enemies should and could be part of it. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 21:50, June 17, 2011 (UTC) ::So... I hope the discussions here didn't died off just like that. — Teugene (Talk) 03:22, June 21, 2011 (UTC) :::I think they just did. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 03:30, June 21, 2011 (UTC) ::::I do hope it's not because of the above. I'm prepared to delete my previous comments there to make a clean break and keep the focus on the topic... but doing so will make the previous postings out of place unless everyone else is prepared to do the same. — Teugene (Talk) 03:35, June 21, 2011 (UTC)